Scientists fume after Focus on the Family chief Dobson 'misrepresents' work on gays

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you reeeealy want something to be true and lie about it enough times, in your own mind.... it is true :roll:

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Both scientists cited by conservative pundit James Dobson in a recent Time magazine column are publicly rejecting his use of their research--and are demanding that he cease to use their findings, RAW STORY has learned.
New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, PhD, earlier this week blasted Focus on the Family leader, James C. Dobson, for "twisting" and "distorting" her research in a column published in Time Magazine.
In it, the self-described social conservative wrote:
According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.​
But Gilligan claimed that Dobson distorted her findings, and says that she disagrees with his theory that same-sex couples are unsuitable parents. In a pointed letter to Dobson and released to the press, Gilligan demanded that he apologize and "cease and desist" from quoting her work in the future.
"I was mortified," Gilligan wrote, "to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine."
"My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households," Gilligan asserts.
"I trust," her letter concluded, "that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family."
Dr. Kyle Pruett of the Yale school of medicine was equally shocked to discover Dobson's use of his work in the column.
"You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes," he wrote in a similar letter to Dobson. "This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions."
In fact, Pruett's work suggests the opposite of Dobson's assertions. "On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece," he points out, "I wrote, 'What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.'"
The researches had been unaware of the Time column, until they were contacted by activist Wayne Besen, who claims that Focus "habitually lies and shamelessly mangles research to support its anti-gay agenda."
"[Gilligan] had not heard of the article," Besen explained to RAW STORY. "I directed her to it, and she was livid."
"James Dobson should start to wonder," the activist stated in a release, "if there is something inherently wrong with his stance on gay issues if the only way he can support his positions is outright lying."


....and just for Karrie....
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle...entist_blasts_Focus_on_Family_chief_1215.html
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Dobson's a moron. Plain and simple, and that's the tricky thing with publishing research... even morons can read and cherry pick findings.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
People accept that which supports their beliefs and reject that which does not. That is nothing new and one has to look no further than this web site for evidence of this
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
It is not only Dr. Dobson, lying is an accepted tool in the arsenal of religious right. When possible they will take somebody’s research and distort it, it is nothing new.

If they don’t have a research handy that they can distort, they simply invent the numbers, invent the statistic. Religious right followers think nothing of it; they accept it as a matter of course.

I remember when Pat Robertson ran for president (I think it was in 1988), he made the outrageous claim that 25% of trade union workers are on drugs. Now, religious right followers would have swallowed his statement as the Gospel truth, so normally nobody would question his assertion.

However, since he was running for president, he was in the limelight, and the press asked him for the source of his information. The poor fellow of course could not produce any evidence, because none existed.

But the point is, to both religious right leaders and followers, lying is an accepted method of making their point.
 
Last edited:

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
It is not only Dr. Dobson, lying is an accepted tool in the arsenal of religious right. When possible they will take somebody’s research and distort it, it is nothing new.

If they don’t have a research handy that they can distort, they simply invent the numbers, invent the statistic. Religious right followers think nothing of it; they accept it as a matter of course.

I remember when Pat Robertson ran for president (I think it was in 1988, he made the outrageous claim that 25% of trade union workers are on drugs. Now, religious right followers would have swallowed his statement as the Gospel truth, so normally nobody would question his assertion.

However, since he was running for president, he was in the limelight, and the press asked him for the source of his information. The poor fellow of course could not produce any evidence, because none existed.

But the point is, to both religious right leaders and followers, lying is an accepted method of making their point.

The ultimate oxymoron????

Christian = truthfullness
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Good to know. I hadn't realized I felt that way.

That's because you're more religious center, or religious left :smile:

As to you SirJoseph, when you write a reply outcrying the intent and motivation of one group that makes over reaching statements, you should strive to avoid doing the same thing yourself. ;-)
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
That's because you're more religious center, or religious left :smile:

As to you SirJoseph, when you write a reply outcrying the intent and motivation of one group that makes over reaching statements, you should strive to avoid doing the same thing yourself. ;-)

sorry.... I'm used to to atheists lumping anyone religious in as 'right wing'. lol
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
sorry.... I'm used to to atheists lumping anyone religious in as 'right wing'. lol

Well, I don’t. There are many religious people I respect and admire, such as Rev. Martin Luther King, Bishop Tutu, Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter etc. While these people believe in God (with which I disagree), they don’t wear their religion on their sleeve, they show none of the hatred, prejudice or antipathies that are displayed by the religious right.

These people have done a lot of good, accomplished a lot, without offending those who disagree with them on religious issues.

So there are many religious people I admire and respect. For the religious right, on the other hand, I have nothing but contempt.